TP 760 
. G75 
Copy 1 




Is it More Dangerous, 

IN ACTUAL USE, THAN 

Coal Gas ? 


A. O. GRANGER & CO., 

22 and 24 N. 4th St., and 400, 402 and 404 Commerce St., 
PHILADELPHIA. 

I88 3 . 

















ft 








4 



r 



i 















f 








* 








t 





V 






i 1 












4 



» 



t 








« 







• t 





• • • 




4 





% 









i 




1 
















» 

































Copyright 1883, 

BY 

A. O. Granger & Co. 


* 


Edward Patteson, Printer, 18 South Third St., Philadelphia. 






I 


0 0 

S> 

f 

r* 

ej 

A PAMPHLET is being industriously 
circulated in various cities containing 
statements to the effect that Water Gas is par¬ 
ticularly dangerous because of the “Carbonic 
Oxide” it contains, and we see that great prom¬ 
inence is given to the opinion once held by Prof. 
Henry Morton, Ph. D., President Stevens In¬ 
stitute of Technology, Hoboken, N. J. 

Now there are two sides to every question, 
and if any one has been misled by the over¬ 
drawn statements in the pamphlet referred to, 
we ask their attention to what follows. 

And we will begin the other side of the story 
by quoting Prof. Morton ourselves. In a letter 
to the “Plumber and Sanitary Engineer” of 
New York, January 15th, 1880, he says: 

“ / am quite ready to admit that when the sub¬ 
ject jirst came to my notice , my impression was 
that Water Gas was so practically dangerous (on 
account of the large amount of Carbonic Oxide 
in it), that it should not be admitted into general 


Morton. 


4 


H. Wurtz. 


use “but further consideration modified this 
view ” Md’ belief that “it would be a question 
of economy and efficiency simply, whether Water 
Gas did or did not become the Gas of the future. * ’ 

The pamphlet contains a wearisome list of 
quotations compiled by Prof. Morton for the 
“American Gas Light Journal,” in 1878, before 
he had revised his opinions as above, and on 
this general subject we quote from the eminent 
chemist, Prof. Henry Wurtz, Ph. D., of Hobo¬ 
ken, N. J., as follows : 

“No accumulation of citations of vague and 
crude opinions, stereotyped through generations 
of school books, as to the danger of small per¬ 
centages of Carbonic Oxide in air should have 
any influence on reasonable minds, when it is 
only by rare accident or stupidity that even these 
small percentages can be communicated to the air 
of a close room. I am confirmed in my conclu¬ 
sions, that whatever dangers to life and health 
may or do arise from the use (or rather abuse) 
of illuminating Gases, these will not be enhanced 
in any way by an increase in its proportion of 
Carbonic Oxide." 


5 


Water Gas was introduced in New York city 
in 1877 by the Municipal Gas Light Co., and 
early in 1878 Dr. Henry Wurtz made two'ex¬ 
haustive reports giving the results of his scien¬ 
tific analyses. About this time Prof. Morton’s 
articles, above referred to, came out in the 
“American Gas Light Journal” of New York, 
a paper wedded to Coal Gas interests, and it 
gave much comfort to the Coal Gas people who 
hoped thereby to stay the progress of Water 
Gas. 

Now in order to satisfy the public that the 
Gas they were furnishing was entirely safe, the 
Municipal Co. sent all these papers to the two 
most eminent chemical authorities in the world, 
Dr. E. Frankland, of London, and Dr. Adolphe 
Wurtz, of Paris, and we gladly quote their re¬ 
plies in full: 

“Royal College of Chemistry, 

South Kensington Museum, 
London, May 16, 1878. 

Sir: 

In compliance with your request , I have 
read the reports of Dr. Henry Wurtz , dated Jan. 


Frankland. 


6 




A. Wurtz. 


i, 1878, and March 4, 1878, on the composition 
and properties of the Gas of the Municipal Gas 
Light Co., of New York , and also the articles 
published by Prof. Henry Morton , in the “ Amer¬ 
ican Gas Light Journal ’ ’ of March 2 and 16, 
1878; and having been called upon to express i?iy 
opinion as to the adaptability of Wate1 Gas for 
lighting and heating purposes , / have no hesita¬ 
tion in saying that it may be used with safety , 
both in public buildings and private houses. L 
should be delighted to substitute this pure and 
powerful illuminating agent for the Gas with 
which my house in London is at present supplied , 
although it is used in all the bedrooms. 

(Signed) E. Frankland. 

To Charles G. Franklyn, Esq., 

Preset Municipal Gas Light Co., of New York.” 

“ Paris, June 12, 1878. 

Sir : 

L have read with attention and interest 
the documents concerning the Gas of the Munici¬ 
pal Gas Light Co., of New York , which you 
have forwarded to me. 


7 


I have acquainted myself with the extensive 
and exact work which Dr. Henry Wurtz has 
published about the composition and use of the 
Gas. Produced by the decomposition of steam 
on incandescent carbon, and saturated with very 
volatile hydrocarbons obtained from petroleum, 
the Gas possesses an intense illuminating power, 
a marked smell and a sufficient density. I have 
been struck with the correctness of the remarks 
which terminate the report of Dr. H. Wurtz, 
and which, in my opinion, answer the objections 
formulated by Dr. Henry Morton, inserted in two 
articles in the “American Gas Light Journal 
published in New York. No doubt the danger 
of poisoning exists with all Gases containing 
Carbonic Oxide, and Coal Gas is not exempt 
from the latter, as it can contain as much as 12 % 
of its volume. But I think that the danger, 
which could only have sad consequences in ex¬ 
ceptional cases, and through a sort of fatality, 
has been exaggerated, and should not be taken 
into accoitnt, considering that Gas is used without 
hesitation for lighting our houses, notwithstand¬ 
ing the very real danger of explosion and fire. 


8 


no matter what kind of Gas or its composition. 

Further, the use of Water Gas has never been 
prohibited in France, and if the numerous pro¬ 
cesses which have been indicated for its pro¬ 
duction have been abandoned or have received 
only a restricted application, the cause is princi¬ 
pally due to the circumstance that the technical 
and economical conditions of the production 
have, up to the present time, been very unfavor¬ 
able. 

In manufacturing under good conditions, a 
Gas remarkable on account of its illuminating 
power and of a sufficient smell to reveal its pres¬ 
ence, you have realized an important progress. It 
would appear to me unjust to deprive you of your 
useful discovery. 

(Signed) Adolphe Wurtz, 

Member of the Institute, Professor at the School 
of Medicine and the School of Sciences . 

To Charles G. Franklyn, Esq., 

Preset Municipal Gas Light Co., of New York .” 

It is stated in the pamphlet, time and again, 
that the manufacture of Water Gas was pro- 
hibited in France and on the continent. 


9 


Please notice that in the above letter of Dr. 
Adolphe Wurtz, this statement is flatly contra¬ 
dicted, so far as France is concerned; and it 
is a well known fact that many of the cities of 
Europe are supplied with Gas made from wood, 
and containing, according to Dr. Wurtz, from 
27 to 32 % Carbonic Oxide. 

The Gas at Berlin is made from Lignite, or 
brown coal, and contains 40 %, and the Gas at 
Munich, Bavaria, 40.5 % of Carbonic Oxide: 
see Prof. Chandler’s article in Johnson’s Ency¬ 
clopedia, vol. ii, page 450. And just here we 
are glad to again quote Prof. Morton, who, in 
an article on Water Gas in the “ Plumber and 
Sanitary Engineer,” of New York, December 
8th, 1879, which he coincides with the above 
opinion of Dr. Wurtz, says: 

“ You will see that I not only agreed with 
Prof. Wurtz in considering Carbonic Oxide as 
rendering all Gases which contain it more or less 
dangerous , but also regarded the danger from 
any Gas] as so small and modified by so many 
other conditions that this question need not and 
undoubtedly would not influence the practical 


Doremus. 


io 

adoption of any Gas for domestic uses — provided , 
it were otherwise desirable. ’ ’ 

The pamphlet asserts that Water Gas is not 
only poisonous but that the products of com¬ 
bustion are more dangerous than from Coal 
Gas. On these points see what is said by Dr. 
R. Ogden Doremus, Professor of Chemistry 
and Toxicology, Bellevue Hospital Medical 
College, New York: 

“ Having been informed that parties are cir¬ 
culating reports that Water Gas is particularly 
poisonous , and having been requested to express 
an opinion on this subject , I beg leave to state 
that the trivial variations in the Gases made by 
different processes is of no importance in regard 
to health , excepting as to the products of their 
combustion. In this respect Water Gas is su¬ 
perior to all others , as it does not contain impuri¬ 
ties existing in Gas manufactured from bitumin¬ 
ous coal. ’ ’ 

Regarding the comparative safety of Coal 
Gas and Water Gas, Prof. T. Sterry Hunt, of 
Montreal, writes: 


II 


“/ must say, however , that the notion of any 
important difference in the safety or fitness for 
use of two such Gases seems to me to be absurd. 
The only questions to be raised are the relative 
cheapness and illuminating power." 

We referred the question as to whether Car¬ 
bonic Oxide is an objectionable element in 
Water Gas to Dr. Gideon E. Moore, of New 
York, the eminent analytical chemist, and re¬ 
ceived the following reply : 

“ I consider Carbonic Oxide to be a highly 
desirable ingredient in Water Gas; its density 
and high flame temperature greatly promotes the 
illuminating effect and retards waste. ’ ’ 

In 1881, certain parties interested in Coal 
Gas got up a petition to the Board of Aider- 
men of New York, making the usual assertions 
that Water Gas is more dangerous than Coal 
Gas, and praying that its manufacture be pro¬ 
hibited. This communication was referred to 
the Board of Health with the following results, 
and, as Dr. Chandler is perhaps the highest 
chemical authority in this country, we ask es- 
epcial attention to his opinion : 


Hunt. 


Moore. 


12 


Chandler. 


“ Report of Prof. C. F. Chandler, 

President of the Board of Health, 

To the Board of Aldermen, City of N. Y. 

The President laid before the Board the fol¬ 
lowing communication from the Board of Health: 

Health Dept ., New York , April if, 1881. 
To the Honorable the Board of Aldermen : 

At a meeting of the Board of Health held 
on the ijth inst., the following report of the 
President was unanimously adopted , and a copy 
was ordered to be forwarded to your honorable 
body: 

REPORT. 

1 1 have the honor to report that the petition of 
citizens referred to the Board of Health by the 
Honorable the Board of Aldermen , with regard 
to the illuminating Gas which is manufactured 
from steam , anthracite coal and naptha,—the so- 
called “ Water Gas”—has been duly considered. 

This Gas has been extensively used in the City 
of New York for some years , in public and pri¬ 
vate buildings. While it differs somewhat in 
composition from the Gas manufactured from bit¬ 
uminous coal, it involves , in its careless use, the 


J 3 


same sources of danger. If allowed to escape 
into the air without being burned, it produces an 
explosive ?nixture with the air; and it is also 
liable to supfocate persons who may remain for any 
length of time in the atmosphere thus contaminated. 

There are no facts which give any substantial 
foundation for the apprehe 7 isions of the petition¬ 
ers that this Gas is in any way more da?igerous 
than the Gas previously in use. I would further 
state, that the allegation that this 1 ‘ Water Gas ’ ’ 
has been prohibited in Paris, is directly denied by 
Prof. Adolphe Wurtz, of that city, in a letter 
which I have before me ; that the greater density 
of the Gas causes it to escape more slowly from 
leaks than does ordinary Coal Gas ; and that its 
odor is so decided that leaks are detected just as 
readily as in the case of other Gas. In conclu¬ 
sion , I would say, I see no reason why any offi¬ 
cial action should be taken on this subject. 

(Signed) C. F. Chandler, President.’ 
Which was referred to the committee on Police 
and Health Departments. ’ ’ 

The general question as to whether Water 
Gas is a safe and desirable illuminant, was re- 






14 


Jones. 


ferred by the Mayor of New Orleans to Dr. 
Joseph Jones, President of the Board of Health, 
with the following reply : 

“ New Orleans, August 9, 1880. 
Hon. I. W. Patton, 

Mayor of the City of New Orleans : 

Sir: 

In reply to the communication of your 
Honor, of the 6th ult., propounding certain in¬ 
quiries with reference to the chemical composition , 
poisonous properties, and relative value of Water 
Gas, I respecfully submit the following outline 
of the results of my investigation: 

1st. Its pure brilliancy and illuminating power 
far surpasses the ordinary Coal Gas flame, and 
equals the renowned B and Cannel Coal Gases 
of Scotland. 

2d. Respectmg the purity of the Gas, it is com¬ 
posed of fixed Gases like air, unchangeable by 
heat and cold, and almost absolutely free from 
gummy vapors which are constantly such a great 
detriment in the old process. 


J 5 


3d. As regards the effects of its use on health, 
those who have used the Gas most extensively 
testify to the fact that it is in no manner dan¬ 
gerous, and is as safe in this respect as ordinary 
Coal Gas. 

4th. The products or effects of burning the 
Water Gas are less objectionable than with Gas 
from gas coal. An illuminating Gas with a 
basis of Water Gas, yields in burning less water 
and carbonic acid, and consumes less oxygen of 
the air for equal volumes than any average Gas 
of less candle power made from pure gas coal. 

From the preceding facts we conclude : 

1. Water Gas is superior to the ordinary Coal 
Gas in heating and illuminating power. 

2. Water Gas can be furnished at less cost to 
the consumer than ordinary Gas. 

3. Water Gas is not more danger oils in case 
of leakage than that made from gas coal. 

4. The products or effects of burning Water 
Gas are less objectionable and less injurious than 
those arising from the combustion of Coal Gas. 

Respectfully, 

(Signed) Joseph Jones, M.D., 

Preset Board of Health, State of Louisiana 


Croft. 


Pike. 


16 

• 

In 1879, the Coal Gas Company of Toronto 
changed its works to the Lowe Water Gas sys¬ 
tem, and soon after the usual opposition was 
made by parties in the old Coal Gas interest, 
and the question of the safety of Water Gas 
was referred to the two leading chemists of the 
City. 

Dr. H. H. Croft, Jate Professor of Chemistry, 
University College, Toronto, made a lengthy 
report in which we find these words: 

“ In conclusion, I may say that the Gas made 
by the Lowe Process , or from Coal may be used 
indifferently, with proper precautions and com¬ 
mon sense, and that the one is not on the whole 
more dangerous than the other, nor nearly so 
much so as the oil employed in our lamps. ’ ’ 

Dr. Pike, Professor of Chemistry, University 
College, Toronto, wrote: 

“ The City Gas as at present supplied is, if 
used with the ordinary precautions necessary in 
the case of Coal Gas, free from all practical 
danger. As to the comparative danger to life of 
an open tap or leak in a bedroom in the case of 
Coal Gas and Lowe Gas, I think that there can 
be 7 io great difference.' f , 


x 7 


One phase of the opposition at Toronto was 
the assertion that in the two years ending 1880, 
there had been 11 deaths from poisoning by 
Water Gas in New York City. Now at the 
instance of Mr. W. H. Pearson, Secretary of 
the Toronto Company, this statement was 
carefully investigated, and inquiry at the Cor¬ 
oner’s office and at the places where the deaths 
occurred, developed the facts that: 

Three were suicides, the persons deliberately 
stopping the key-hole, and putting rugs at the 
bottom of the door, and unscrewing the Gas 
bracket. 

Three were caused by explosions at Gas 
Works. (The record does not state the kind of 
Gas in above six cases.) 

Three were by accidental suffocation with 
Water Gas, and 

Two by accidental suffocation with Coal Gas. 

It is thus seen, to put it mildly, that when 
facts are wanting the imagination is freely 
drawn upon. ^ 

T^e following is a copy of the analysis of 
the Lowe Water Gas at Baltimore: 


Love. 


18 


$ 

Constituents. 

Vols. 

per 

100 


Marsh Gas,. 

Carbonic oxide,. 

46.49 

n -75 

21.51 

4-30 

.20 

Olefine J 
Gases. 1 


6.50 

-35 

.15 

Paraffine J 
Gases. 1 


• 5 ° 
1.00 

7-25 


j 100.00 


which we sent to Dr. E. G. Love, Analytical 
Chemist, and Official Gas Examiner of New 
York City, and asked an expression of his opin¬ 
ion with special reference to Carbonic Oxide. 
His reply is as follows: 

“New York, Jan. 31st, 1883. 
Messrs. A. O. Granger &. Co., Philadelphia: 

Gentlemen : 

Yours of the 30th Inst. Is at 
hand . In reply I will say that I think the 
only questions relative to “ Water Gas ” that 
need be considered by any Gas Company, are 





























T 9 


the economy of production and quality of the 
light. I do not consider the presence of Carbonic 
Oxide in illuniinating Gas as objectionable. 

I might add that in 1879 ^ ie Municipal Com¬ 
pany of this city made 550,000,000 cubic feet of 
the so-called Water Gas , and in May 1880, the 
New York Company adopted the sa?ne process, 
and I have no doubt that the present yearly con¬ 
sumption of Water Gas in this city is over *one 
billion cubic feet. 

Yours truly, 

(Signed) E. G. Love, Ph.D.” 

Comparing Water Gas with Coal Gas two 
plain questions were asked Prof. Henry Wurtz 
as to the danger from products of combustion 
and from leakage, and we quote herewith both 
the questions and answers in full: 

“ Question—Are the products of combustion H. Wurtz. 
of the Lowe Water Gas, when in use, more or 
less deleterious to health than those of Gas from 
Gas Coal?" 

“The answer to this question must be qualified 
by assuming it to apply to Gases of like candle 
power. In this case it is a matter of chemical 


20 


demonstration that the amount of Carbonic Acid 
formed by the Lowe Gas when burning , the 
amount of aqueous vapor formed , and the 
amount of atmospheric Oxygen consumed or 
destroyed are all three very considerably less than 
in the case of Gas from gas coal The effects 
upon the atmosphere of rooms (equally lighted 
with the two Gases) tell , therefore , considerably 
in * favor of the Lowe Gas." 

“ Question — Whether , in the event of leakage 
in dwellings , the Lowe Water Gas is more dan¬ 
gerous or less dangerous to life andproperty than 
ordinary Coal Gas P * 

“ The dangers from leakage of Gas are two 
in kind: ist. From suffocation by inhalation. 
2d. From explosion and fire. Of these the last 
is much the most common and the most serious, 
involving injury to both property and life. In¬ 
deed, suffocation rarely or almost never arises 
fi'om ordinary (accidental) leakage; but mostly 
from inexcusably culpable negligence or ignor¬ 
ance. Facts on record support strongly the 
belief that variation in composition of illumina¬ 
ting Gases has little or no appreciable influence 


21 


on its suffocating quality. The most narcotic 
agents present are the illuminating hydrocarbons, 
and a small percentage of these in air is always 
dangerous to life, by reason of the rapid ances- 
thesia which follows their inhalation ; and Car¬ 
bonic Oxide is also a powerful ancesthetic, but 
not more so than these heavy hydrocarbons, on 
which the illuminating value of all Gases de¬ 
pends. As to the explosiveness of the two Gases, 
however, and the danger arising therefrom, the 
new Gas has a decided advantage. 

“ Carbonic Oxide is a Gas whose explosive 
power for equal volumes is far smaller than 
that of Marsh Gas, a main constituent of ordi¬ 
nary Gas Coal Gas. This is because in explod¬ 
ing Marsh Gas consumes four times as much 
Oxygen as Carbonic Oxide. The introduction 
of the Lowe Gas must therefore be attended 
with diminution of risks to life and property. 

(Signed) Henry Wurtz, Ph.D.” 

In this remarkable pamphlet we have been 
commenting upon the statement is gravely 
made * that “Water Gas is more dangerous 
than Coal Gas because it is about twice the 


22 


specific gravity of Coal Gas and is .heavier 
than air, and so in case of leaks will fall to the 
floor and not be noticed as quickly as Coal Gas 
which has a more intense odor.” 

All of which is simply false. Water Gas 
smells worse even than Coal Gas and its pres¬ 
ence can be instantly detected by the smell 
when so small a quantity as one ten thousandth 
part has escaped into the air of a room. It is 
but little heavier than Coal Gas, its specific 
gravity being .570 while Coal Gas is .470, air 
being called 1.000 and taken as the standard. 
And so instead of being heavier than air it is 
but little more than half its weight; and as a 
matter of fact the writer has made an ascension 
in a balloon filled with pure Water Gas. 

From all this talk about Carbonic Oxide one 
might take, it to be a newly discovered Gas, but 
in reality it is the same Gas that escapes from 
our stoves and ranges and heaters, after a fresh 
lot of coal has been thrown on the fire, if the 
proper damper isn’t opened so as to let it 
escape up the chimney. Does anyone think of 
objecting to the use of stoves and of coal or 


2 3 


coke because occasionally through thoughtless¬ 
ness or stupidity in regulating the dampers the 
“Coal Gas” of the housekeeper escapes into 
the room ? 

Illuminating Gas made from bituminous coal 
is highly charged with the deadly fire damp of 
the coal mine, which is simply “Marsh Gas” 
or “Light Carburetted Hydrogen,” and is 
present in Coal Gas to the extent of 46 per 
cent, while Water Gas contains but 12 per 
cent., but we do not on this account attempt 
to raise a hue and cry against Coal Gas, because 
any danger attending its use is very remote 
and is simply the result of dense ignorance or 
gross carelessness. 

Opposition to the march of improvement 
has been the rule in all ages, either from motives 
of self interest of the few, or fondness for the 
old beaten paths. With reference to the intro¬ 
duction of Coal Gas early in the present 
century we find that it was quite as long in 
gaining public favor as Water Gas has been. 

,The first proposals to light a town with Coal 
Gas were made in England as early as 1765, 


24 


but it was not practically applied for lighting 
until 1792, when William Murdoch lighted his 
own house with it in Cornwall. A Gas Com¬ 
pany was not fom!ed in London until 1810. 
Paris was not lighted with Gas until 1820, New 
York until 1834, and Philadelphia until 1835. 

Much opposition and prejudice had to be 
overcome before it was generally adopted, and 
as an instance of this there is on record a 
petition from a large number of influential 
citizens of Philadelphia, dated 1830, setting 
forth a great number of evils and calamities 
that would inevitably follow its introduction 
there, owing to its “ poisonous, explosive and 
destructive nature, and praying the Govern¬ 
ment to prohibit it.” 

One of the early objections to Gas in Eng¬ 
land was the danger from fire, the belief being 
current that the Gas was distributed in an 
ignited state. On this point we find the follow¬ 
ing in Clegg’s Work on Coal Gas : 

“It was generally believed that the pipes 
carrying the Gas must be hot, for when the 
passages to the House of Commons were lighted 


25 


the architect insisted upon the pipes being 
placed four or five inches from the wall for fear 
of fire. And the curious often applied their 
gloved hands to the pipe£ to ascertain their 
temperature.” 

We note regarding the pamphlet we have 
been referring to that it has no paternity. No 
one seems willing at this late day to father it, 
and so it had to be brought out anonymously. 
And we do not wonder at it, for where it is 
not untruthful it is simply a rehash of stale and 
antiquated statements that have since been re¬ 
tracted, and which never went to the core of 
the matter anyhow. The real question of to¬ 
day is not whether Carbonic Oxide is a poison¬ 
ous Gas, for this nq one denies, but whether 
Water Gas, containing 20 to 25 per cent, of it, 
and less of other dangerous and deadly Gases 
of which Coal Gas is largely composed, is, 
when used with the same precautions and under 
like conditions, any more objectionable than 
Coal Gas, particularly if from Water Gas there 
can be obtained a brighter light at less cost ? 

We have had considerable experience in 


2 6 


introducing Water Gas into various cities and 
towns and find that the first opposition from 
Coal Gas men comes in the form of the asser¬ 
tion that they can make Coal Gas as cheap as 
we can make Water Gas, and being beaten on 
this point in fair argument they inevitably fall 
back upon the bug-bear “ Carbonic Oxide ” as 
a last resort. This is the pretext, but the real 
objection often is either interest in Gas Coal 
mines. or, for various reasons, interest in keep¬ 
ing a large force of men employed. 

We could without difficulty compile from 
musty technical works, as well as from living 
authorities, a great list of facts proving the 
deadly narcotic effect of the component parts 
of Coal Gas, but this would not be to the 
point. 

If Gas were furnished for bi'eathing purposes 
all this objection would be in order, and not 
more so with Water Gas than with Coal Gas, 
but as the Gas is for illuminating purposes we 
think we have completely proven that when 
used with the least spark of intelligence, which 
is necessary with either Gas, it is quite as safe 


27 


as the Coal Gas with which most of our cities 
and towns have been lighted for years, and that 
as a matter of fact the only live questions are 
whether Water Gas will furnish a Gas more 
brilliant than Coal Gas, and for less money, and 
to these questions we unhesitatingly answer in 
the affirmative, and only ask for opportunity to 
demonstrate it. 

GUARANTEE. 

To show the confidence we have in our Im¬ 
proved Lowe Water Gas Process, we hereby 
offer to erect for any Gas Company complete 
works, at our own cost, and with a make up¬ 
wards of 600,000 cubic feet per day we guar¬ 
antee that the average amount of materials 
per 1000 feet of 18 candle Gas will not be over 
45 lbs. Anthracite Coal (including coal used in 
boilers), and 4)^.gallons Naphtha, and that 
50,000 feet per day per man can be made for 
each man at works, including purification. 

If above guarantee is not fully realized we 
will remove the works without costing the Gas 
Company one dollar. 


28 


With a smaller make than above indicated 
there will be a slight increase in coal and labor 
only. 

We wish it to be most distinctly understood 
that we take all the risk, and we will be glad 
to give any further information. 

A. O. GRANGER & CO., 

Engineers and Contractors, 

22 & 24 N. Fourth St., 

A. O. GRANGER. 

JOS. H. COLLINS, JR. PHILADELPHIA, Pa. 



Lowe 

WATER GAS 
APPARATUS 


Engineers, Contractors, 

AND 

BUILDERS, 

Philadelphia, Pa., U. S. A. 

A. 0. Granger. Joseph H. Collins, Jr. 




Jos.H c<jS‘ ,'jr ± I ^ , 


Improvements \ 


WITH 


A. 0, GRANGER & CO.’S 

PATENTED 


Works Built by A. 

Scranton, Pa., 2 
Wilkesbarre, “ 2 

Pottsville, “ 2 

Williamsport, “ 2 

Pittston, “ 1 

Bethlehem, " 1 

Catasauqua, “ 1 

Mauch Chunk," 1 
Carlisle, “ 1 

Hazelton, " 1 

Honesdale, “ 1 

Yonkers, N. Y., 1 
Fort Plain, (t 1 
Coney Island, “ 2 


0. Granger & Co. to Aug. 1882. 

sets. Attica. N. Y., 1 set. 
Port Jervis, “ 1 “ 

N.Brunsw’k.N. J. ,1 “ 
Keene, N H., 1 “ 

St Johnsbury ,Vt., 1 “ 

(For E <fc T. Fairbanks & Co) 
Pullman, Ill., 2 sets 
(For Pullman’s Palace CarCo.) 
Kokomo, Ind., 1 set. 
Norfolk, Va , 2 sets. 

Washington,D.C.,4 “ 
Sherbrooke, Que., 2 “ 

St. Hyacinth, “ 1 set 


Generator Setting in Pit, 


4^=5 Generator Steam Valve and Index 
Generator Coaling Branch. 

=441 Form of Washer. 

IZlLr Pressure Gauges. 


Entered according to Act of Congress, in the year 1882, by A 


Super-Heater Fire-brick Arch. 
Super-Heater Stack. 

Supek-HEATER Stack Valve. 
Super-Heater Stack Outlet. 
Super-Heater Lining * Filling Brick. 

Form of Scrubbers. 

• System of Oil Distribution. 

Standards and Connections for Operating Blast and'Steam Valves. 
Special Cross lee and Hand-Hole Connections to facilitate clean¬ 
ing interior of Works 

^ ■ ‘4 i "^ . Open Hydraulic Seals for Washers and Scrubbers’ and various 

specialties in minor details. 

O. Granger & Co., in the Office of the Librarian of Congress, at Washington.' 


































































































































































































































































. 


















































. 























































































LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 



0 033 266 805 ,5 





























